Should College be Free or at Some Nominal Cost?

[Superfluous Man]

If employers can simply sidestep the U.S. workforce by hiring foreigners that may have obtained their college degrees through the aid of their own governments' interference, then we are simply setting ourselves up for failure since we are not all operating within the same system.

I'm not sure who you mean by "we." Those American employers who make up part of the "us" of America would only hire those foreigners if they believe that doing so would set themselves up for success, not failure. And they are in a better position to make that decision than government bureaucrats could be.

If this means that foreign governments are subsidizing the educations of a good part of America's workforce at the expense of their taxpayers, rather than at the expense of ours, then we should accept that gift from them. It's not fair to their taxpayers (the people who really are being set up for failure in this exchange). But we need to leave that between them and their governments, and not try to make it fair for them by handicapping ourselves just to get rid of the unfair advantage their governments insist on giving us.

Granted, if you narrow things down to the level of the effect of a specific government action (or inaction) on a specific individual, then with any choice between the free market and a government managed economy, you'll find that, while the overall effect will always be better with the free market, there will still be some winners or losers with each option. There's bound to be some spoiled American high-tech worker out there who is getting paid more than he's worth because the government is intervening on his behalf to stop his employer from being able to replace him with a foreign worker at a lower cost. And this worker may think that supporting free markets would be cutting his own throat, to use the expression you used in your earlier post. Or he may want some kind of hybrid system where he'll support a government managed economy only when the government is intervening to help him at everyone else's expense, but then support free markets in everything else when he's not the beneficiary of the intervention. But he should also realize that if he wants to play that game, then all the other beneficiaries of all the other government interventions in all the other segments of the economy will want to play too, and he'll have no moral leg to stand on to object to them doing that. As a result, we all end up being worse off with all of those interventions, as opposed to better off with none of them.

This is one of the great problems we have with selling free markets to the masses. For every government program the benefits are concentrated on a few, and the costs are disbursed among the many. The costs for each program then are very small for each person who suffers them, while the benefits are relatively great for the few who enjoy them. But those costs, for all the various interventions, add up to the point that for each of us, as a rule, they end up being greater than the benefits we get from those few interventions we individually benefit from.

[Brian4Liberty]

Everyone knows you don't value things that are free to you as much as if you had to put something into it, even a little. If you pay for a bike with your newspaper route money you spend your time shining it and acting as if it were your baby. Your parents are rich and give you bikes who gives a crap, you trash it.

I disagree with Bernie Sanders that college should be free, but i do believe it should be lower cost, and that kids 23 should not start life 80 grand in debt, like, that's what med school used to be. A year at Yale (JUST UNDERGRAD!) just topped 70 grand!

Is there a compromise position, or are things fine just the way they are?

Start with the basics. Supply and demand, competition, true price discovery, and market distortions (malinvestments) like government student loan programs.

What laws, regulations, etc. restrict the opening of new Colleges?

Subsidized and loan driven students have less immediate skin in the game. They don’t truly comprehend that debt must be repaid. Some are going to school just to be doing something, just to say that they have a four year degree even if that degree does not prepare them for a job. This is why there is an explosion of useless degrees. They were incentivized. The less than enthused and aimless students increase demand in a market with limited supply, thus driving up price. We need to increase competition on the supply side (number of schools), and stop incentivized (government loans) and reduce the waste of resources (using up of supply by aimless students).

[Brian4Liberty]

1. Education is expensive because the cost is divorced from the user. Subsidized student loans are the primary driver of cost. At some point the education tuition bubble will pop. The cost isn't going to continue to outpace inflation forever.

2. Most people don't pay 70k a year to attend Yale unless you got in because your parents donated money. Most private schools have a retail sticker price and it is reduced for all sorts of reasons. They do this as a way of maximizing revenue because there are some people who will be willing/able to pay it. And most of the people who attend Yale have substantial outside scholarships.
...
But engineering, Biz schools, pre-med/Chemistry/Biology, physics, and math will always have value. And even though most professors are liberal, most that teach real subjects aren't crazy like in the humanities.

All good points.

[Brian4Liberty]

Government guaranteed student loans are corporate welfare for banksters and the death of sanity in college pricing. Eliminate that and colleges will figure out how to provide affordable educations again.

It was once possible to work one's way through college. And then we heard those dreaded words: We're from the government and we're here to help.

Absolutely. Government loans are an incentive for malinvestment, both by the lenders, and by students wasting time. Wasting time for a useless degree is also malinvestment.

[Brian4Liberty]

We already have affordable college. It is called community college; where nearly anybody should be able to pay it off while working and attending school.
And many states already have scholarship programs where if you graduate from a state community college with a good GPA, you can get an inexpensive ride to a 4year state school.


But that isn't what "they" want. They want a free ride to a party for 4 years.

Certainly a good compromise, especially if it is fully controlled and funded at the State or local level.

[Brian4Liberty]

If government stepped aside, student loans would be more difficult to obtain and tuition costs would reduce. In addition, with fewer college degrees in circulation, employers would not always be able to demand a degree for many positions that really don't need them. However, we would also need to curb the H-1B (and related) problem so that employers won't decide to simply import people with degrees for this to work.

That is a bit of a tangent, yet at the same time, it is fully entwined in US college education problems. Demand for US colleges with a limited supply of slots is increased because it is a path to entry to the US for foreigners. Supply and demand.

[Philhelm]

I'm not sure who you mean by "we." Those American employers who make up part of the "us" of America would only hire those foreigners if they believe that doing so would set themselves up for success, not failure. And they are in a better position to make that decision than government bureaucrats could be.

If this means that foreign governments are subsidizing the educations of a good part of America's workforce at the expense of their taxpayers, rather than at the expense of ours, then we should accept that gift from them. It's not fair to their taxpayers (the people who really are being set up for failure in this exchange). But we need to leave that between them and their governments, and not try to make it fair for them by handicapping ourselves just to get rid of the unfair advantage their governments insist on giving us.

Granted, if you narrow things down to the level of the effect of a specific government action (or inaction) on a specific individual, then with any choice between the free market and a government managed economy, you'll find that, while the overall effect will always be better with the free market, there will still be some winners or losers with each option. There's bound to be some spoiled American high-tech worker out there who is getting paid more than he's worth because the government is intervening on his behalf to stop his employer from being able to replace him with a foreign worker at a lower cost. And this worker may think that supporting free markets would be cutting his own throat, to use the expression you used in your earlier post. Or he may want some kind of hybrid system where he'll support a government managed economy only when the government is intervening to help him at everyone else's expense, but then support free markets in everything else when he's not the beneficiary of the intervention. But he should also realize that if he wants to play that game, then all the other beneficiaries of all the other government interventions in all the other segments of the economy will want to play too, and he'll have no moral leg to stand on to object to them doing that. As a result, we all end up being worse off with all of those interventions, as opposed to better off with none of them.

This is one of the great problems we have with selling free markets to the masses. For every government program the benefits are concentrated on a few, and the costs are disbursed among the many. The costs for each program then are very small for each person who suffers them, while the benefits are relatively great for the few who enjoy them. But those costs, for all the various interventions, add up to the point that for each of us, as a rule, they end up being greater than the benefits we get from those few interventions we individually benefit from.

None of that means squat when immigrants tend to overwhelmingly support increasing government and think that we're crazy because we believe in things such as the right to individual firearm ownership. Ultimately, I do not believe that liberty can exist without borders (unless, of course, the entire world hypothetically exists in a state of liberty). "Pie-in-the-sky" libertarianism can't coexist with globalism, in my opinion.

[Superfluous Man]

None of that means squat when immigrants tend to overwhelmingly support increasing government and think that we're crazy because we believe in things such as the right to individual firearm ownership. Ultimately, I do not believe that liberty can exist without borders (unless, of course, the entire world hypothetically exists in a state of liberty). "Pie-in-the-sky" libertarianism can't coexist with globalism, in my opinion.

Not having the government restrict immigration doesn't equal not having borders. I never understand why immigration restrictionists insist on exaggerating that way.

[Philhelm]

Not having the government restrict immigration doesn't equal not having borders. I never understand why immigration restrictionists insist on exaggerating that way.

Obviously, borders would exist regarding things such as legal jurisdiction, but to allow 100% unrestricted immigration would mean that the nation is de facto borderless as far as immigration/nonimmigration is concerned. Then when they naturalize and start voting in blocks against the last few Americans who believe in limited government (but, sadly, not as limited as you would like), we will all be bent over the barrel.

Some of these people come from nations where slavery still exists, where women are stoned for being raped, where people are still executed for witchcraft, etc., and you think that they aren't going to bring their baggage with them?

[euphemia]

So, J_M_l, you think professors and administrators should volunteer? What, exactly would be used for classrooms? No heat or A/C, obviously, or flush toilets. No technology, so forget about studying anything outside of the humanities because science and engineering require technology these days.

Follow your logic to its natural conclusion and that’s what you have.

Students and their parents should plan for college. Work. Save money. Choose a school nearby, or at least take the first two years in community college. Pay as you go. And once you get to school, go to class and study.

[heavenlyboy34]

We already have affordable college. It is called community college; where nearly anybody should be able to pay it off while working and attending school.
And many states already have scholarship programs where if you graduate from a state community college with a good GPA, you can get an inexpensive ride to a 4year state school.


But that isn't what "they" want. They want a free ride to a party for 4 years.

This^^ The MCCCD colleges charge ~105 FRNs/credit hour and by law they have to keep the tuition as low as possible. The credits also transfer to 4 year unis like ASU, so you can do your first 2 years for half the cost of uni or less.

[Brian4Liberty]

How does this effect supply and demand for college slots? It would certainly increase the demand. Government subsidies will also distort the market.

California is fairly generous to undocumented college students regardless of their DACA status. Starting in 2001, California has allowed undocumented students to pay the discounted in-state levels of tuition at public colleges and universities. Then in 2011, the California Dream Act was approved to provide aid to undocumented status whether or not they have DACA permits. The resulting Dream Act grants cover up to the entire cost of tuition at UC, Cal State, community colleges and more than $9,000 for private colleges to low- and moderate-income students. DACA is not a factor in those awards but the students usually need to have attended a California high school for at least three years. UC, CSU and private schools may add additional grants to help pay for room, board and other costs. The ability for Dreamers to receive student loans at UC and CSU were added to the mix more recently.
...
https://edsource.org/2017/understand...k-guide/586829

“Social Justice” is all the rage with the left. How do they justify the fact that a poor person of color from Arkansas has to pay more for college in California than someone from Guatemala?

[euphemia]

Many colleges and universities are turning down highly qualified local students in favor of out-of-stage students because they pay more.

Everyone should pay the same unless they are scholarship students, and nobody should borrow money to go to school.

[Schifference]

If you are not intelligent enough to figure out how to afford college on your own dime, you do not possess the aptitude to attend. Lenders should qualify students on their ability to repay any loans based on aptitude. Students need to attain a 3.0 or higher to maintain financing. Market rates and risks would be considered by the lender when granting funds. A degree in the field that has the most pay and demand would have better loan standards than a field that is over populated with capable applicants.

[Anti Globalist]

Young kids today shouldn't even consider even going to college in the first place. Just learn a skill or go to a trade school.

[Brian4Liberty]

Many colleges and universities are turning down highly qualified local students in favor of out-of-stage students because they pay more.

Everyone should pay the same unless they are scholarship students, and nobody should borrow money to go to school.

An expected outcome from a distorted market. The people who pay more get priority.

Nevermind that the parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors of the local kids have paid taxes their entire lives to pay for the building and maintenance of those schools, as well as the salaries of the staffs and the huge bureaucracy that surrounds public schools (including colleges). If an out of state kid will pay more, make room locals!

Ain’t socialism grand?

[euphemia]

Young kids today shouldn't even consider even going to college in the first place. Just learn a skill or go to a trade school.

No matter how expensive school is, we are still going to need doctors.

[Schifference]

Remove the no default on student loans. Student loans are not forgiven in bankruptcy. Remove these restrictions. Once lenders are at risk of default, problem solved.

[JudithJohnson]

Everyone knows you don't value things that are free to you as much as if you had to put something into it, even a little. If you pay for a bike with your newspaper route money you spend your time shining it and acting as if it were your baby. Your parents are rich and give you bikes who gives a crap, you trash it.

I disagree with Bernie Sanders that college should be free, but i do believe it should be lower cost, and that kids 23 should not start life 80 grand in debt, like, that's what med school used to be. A year at Yale (JUST UNDERGRAD!) just topped 70 grand!

Is there a compromise position, or are things fine just the way they are?

I agree that college should not be so expensive so that a student has a debt of more than 80 thousand dollars. I believe that education should be free or at least cheaper than it is now. Here, for example, services like admission essay writing service Paperial help students with studying and they do it cheaper than teachers. Teachers offer extra classes for a high fee that is comparable to college fees.

[Superfluous Man]

hey hey hey hey hey hey hey

+rep

[JudithJohnson]

Haha

[Superfluous Man]

I agree that college should not be so expensive so that a student has a debt of more than 80 thousand dollars. I believe that education should be free or at least cheaper than it is now. Here, for example, services like admission essay writing service Paperial help students with studying and they do it cheaper than teachers. Teachers offer extra classes for a high fee that is comparable to college fees.

The computer I'm on has website blocking software that blocked that site and categorized it as "academic fraud."

Any idea why?

[brushfire]

"free" - as in provided by volunteers?

[JudithJohnson]

The computer I'm on has website blocking software that blocked that site and categorized it as "academic fraud."

Any idea why?

I have no idea why. Plugins that are developed in our time have different functionalities. Maybe your plugin in the browser has some hidden functionality that is aimed at blocking similar sites and other sites. Most likely your plugin works with the names of the sites and banned the application to this site due to the fact that the name of the site has a word associated with educational services.

[JudithJohnson]

"free" - as in provided by volunteers?

No - free education is not an education that is conducted by volunteers. This is an education that is possible to receive as a grant for some achievements. For example, if I won an competition at school, then the state pays me four years of college education, provided that I study well in college

[Superfluous Man]

I have no idea why. Plugins that are developed in our time have different functionalities. Maybe your plugin in the browser has some hidden functionality that is aimed at blocking similar sites and other sites. Most likely your plugin works with the names of the sites and banned the application to this site due to the fact that the name of the site has a word associated with educational services.

Interesting.

So this "admission essay writing service" doesn't sell customers essays written by other people for those customers to represent to others as if it were their own work?

[brushfire]

No - free education is not an education that is conducted by volunteers. This is an education that is possible to receive as a grant for some achievements. For example, if I won an competition at school, then the state pays me four years of college education, provided that I study well in college

I see - so I have some issues with this model.

1. The provider and the granter, being the same entity, creates a potential conflict of interest. In other words, the government will use the money to pander to both the recipients of the grants, and the schools/departments that will receive the grant money. It creates this selective/arbitrary choosing of winners that our government(s) are known for.

2. Inflation due to artificial demand. Folks who might not choose to partake in higher education are, spending lots of money, raising the cost for everyone else, while becoming baristas or other careers/jobs that dont necessarily require college level competencies to be successful in.

3. Striations are created by the government action, further segregation various classes of people. From my experience, while trying to obtain government grants, I was sent by Carol Mosley Brown a phone book sized catalog of grants for women and minorities. As part of item 1 above, the government is effectively dividing the governed, making it easier to manipulate and work classes against each other.

4. Respectable trades are shunned by academia and the government in general, creating skilled trade shortages. This is a point best made by Mike Rowe.

5. Jobs which should not require a college education, now require a degree because of the surplus of college grads - this further inflates college enrollment, making everything more expensive, while offering little value to society as a whole. Employers can simply demand a college education, knowing there is a surplus - they care little about the education, and use college as more of a commitment identifier. (i.e. technical jobs hiring liberal arts majors)

6. Employers limit their investment in employee development and education. Employers now look at it as being the state's responsibility to educate their employees. With little investment required on the part of the Employer, we see this huge miscalculation in the employer's workforce. Historically, mass layoffs had been rare, but are quite common place now, due to this lack of employer investment. Employees are termed as "fungible resources" to be cycled through like any "free" resource might be.


So to conclude: There's no such thing as "free" education, and I believe the government has proven to be the worst stewards of higher education. Since you asked for my opinion, I say students should be responsible for their own education, while the employers and charities would be the best source for the "free" aspect of education.

[JessicaStone]

Everyone knows you don't value things that are free to you as much as if you had to put something into it, even a little. If you pay for a bike with your newspaper route money you spend your time shining it and acting as if it were your baby. Your parents are rich and give you bikes who gives a crap, you trash it.

I disagree with Bernie Sanders that college should be free, but i do believe it should be lower cost, and that kids 23 should not start life 80 grand in debt, like, that's what med school used to be with essay here https://edubirdie.org/ . A year at Yale (JUST UNDERGRAD!) just topped 70 grand!

Is there a compromise position, or are things fine just the way they are?

Indeed, any freedom can be good for the colleges. But what about the students? How will they work with you or any other people without additional help of such type?

[jmdrake]

Everyone knows you don't value things that are free to you as much as if you had to put something into it, even a little. If you pay for a bike with your newspaper route money you spend your time shining it and acting as if it were your baby. Your parents are rich and give you bikes who gives a crap, you trash it.

I disagree with Bernie Sanders that college should be free, but i do believe it should be lower cost, and that kids 23 should not start life 80 grand in debt, like, that's what med school used to be. A year at Yale (JUST UNDERGRAD!) just topped 70 grand!

Is there a compromise position, or are things fine just the way they are?

College prices are artificially inflated by government regulation. For example, there are two law schools in the Nashville area, Vanderbilt and Nashville School of Law. Vanderbilt is ABA accredited. Nashville School Of Law is not. You can sit for the Tennessee bar if you went to either school, but many states won't let you sit for the bar unless you graduated from an ABA accredited school. Guess which one is more expensive?

[Anti Federalist]

You are running counter to the entire spirit of the Founding Fathers on education, who believed that education and critical thinking is one of the bedrocks of freedom.

What do government schools and degree mills have to do with education and critical thinking?

"I never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Sam Clemens